Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
Still waiting for that evidence from your earlier claim. Fyi Jackson was a Democrat.
The claim was made that conservatives are against collective punishment, where is the evidence for that? I challenge that claim because it is nonsense.
Jackson was a member of the newly formed democratic-repiblican political party. Regardless, conservatives that seek to promote and preserve traditional institutions and values want to continue his legacy by calling for mass deportation. Sounds like collective punishment to me.
Eleven thousand air traffic controlers were asking for a fair wage, reduced mandatory overtime and higher safety standards that all Americans could rely on. Reagan fired them all. Seems like collective punishment to me.
Post 9/11 there was a surge in crimes and incidents of discrimination against Muslims, Sikhs, and persons of Arab and South-Asian descent, as well as persons perceived to be members of these groups. Where? Largely in conservative stronghold red states. More recently, didn't Donald call for a “total and complete shutdown” of the borders to Muslims? Smells like collective punishment to me.
Opposition to decriminalization of homosexuality and denial of rights for LGBTQ people is a pretty well known conservative position. Conservative-led legislation to deny lifesaving gender affirming care looks like collective punishment to me.
Both democrats and republicans alike have been complicit in the collective punishment of Palestinian people. According to U.N. data, of the casualties in Gaza, over 57% deaths were combined women and girls over 14, and children under 14.
The systematic killing of unarmed noncombatant civilian women and children continues. Where is conservative condemnation for the forced relocation and institutionalized murder of civilians?
“Collective punishment” is when you punish an entire group for the infractions of a subset of that group.
The idea here is to punish the same set of people seen as breaking the law. “Collective punishment” in this case would be like deporting an entire neighborhood if an undocumented immigrant is discovered in that neighborhood.
Firing someone for asking for something is obviously wrong. Not familiar with the case but I assume they actually broke some kind of rule such as not showing up for work? Was it a strike, this event?
If they literally only asked for these things, then it’s wrong to punish them for that. I doubt this is the case, and it’s just a matter of minimizing language.
But if the set of people actually breaking the agreements was the same set of people who got fired, then it’s not an example of “collective punishment”.
If Reagan fired entire teams of air traffic controllers, whenever any subset of any of those teams broke the agreement, then it would be collective punishment.
Yeah that’s collective punishment. That violates the conservative value.
Smells like, except that coming to the US is not something anyone is entitled to. It’s definitely religious discrimination, which is against the values of our country. Any kind of ethnic or religious discrimination violates the values of our country.
Assuming we are talking about the same rights as non-LGBTQ people are afforded, this isn’t conservative at all. It’s a place Republicans diverge from conservative values.
Republicans are often not conservative.
Again, sloppy with the concept of “punishment”. Making an act illegal is not punishment.
Furthermore the legislation I’ve heard of is about denying this “care” to children. Same way we deny alcohol, guns, and driver’s licenses to children.
If trans adults are being targeted with a ban on surgical procedures on their bodies, then while technically not “punishment”, it’s still discrimination and it’s wrong.
I don’t know enough about the situation to know whether this is “punishment” or not.
I’ve heard reports both ways. I’ve heard both:
The latter is definitely collective punishment. But furthermore there’s nothing even remotely conservative about sending weapons to Israel. Insofar as Republicans are voting for it, those Republicans are violating conservative values.
These days, conservative values just aren’t very present in how the US government works, period.
“systematic” killing is a precise term about a precise thing. It refers to efforts like the Nazis or the Japanese undertook with their camps during WW2.
In Gaza there is indiscriminate killing. You said the set of (women, girls over 14, and children under 14) accounted for 57% of Gazan deaths during the Israeli campaign. Is that the same proportion that this subset of people makes up in the population? If it’s a larger proportion, then yes it’s evidence that women, girls over 14, and children under 14, are being targeted systematically.
But the munitions being used aren’t targeted at these groups. They’re indiscriminate.
The deliberate choice to use indiscriminate munitions, when more targeted methods are available, would definitely be collective punishment. I don’t know enough about the situation to know.
I would suspect that if any demographic group is being systematically targeted for elimination, it would be the complementary set of (males over 14).
The ratio of that group in the population, compared with the ratio of the deaths, would give an indication of whether there is indeed demographic targeting happening.
I know that systematic slaughter of fighting age males is a common trope of history, so it wouldn’t surprise me if these guys make up less than 43% of the population of Gaza despite accounting for 43% of the deaths.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
You make a good point that there is a difference between republican and conservative. It reminds me of those who confuse democrats with leftists, and conflate liberals with socialists.
I see that some of the examples given are not collective punishment, just good old fashioned persecution.
No.
Conservatives have always been champions of individual freedoms.
The Democrat party was founded by Jackson in Jan of 1828, and was opposed by the whig party which became the republican party.
Wanting individuals in the country illegally to be deported is not a collective punishment. They're being removed because they don't belong not because they are part of a group.
I'd need to see sources on that. I do remember CBS trying to gin up news by having people dressed in traditional Muslim clothes go to NASCAR events, guess what nothing happened.
Striking workers got fired is not a collective punishment.
What rights were denied? What laws criminalized homosexuality?
No Republicans or Democrats have participated in the Iseral Palestine conflict.
Inaction is not a punishment.
I don't see evidence of that. I grew up in conservative family in a conservstive community. Conformity, rigid social and economic stratification seemed like the most important, foundational issues to my grandparents, my parents, and the community as a whole.
Deny all you like, however it is a fact of reality that if you supply weapons to someone you know will use then on unarmed noncombatant civilian women and children then you're complicit in those deaths.Thats a war crime.
You're life experiences are one data point and not enough to draw conclusions, even the info you provided is insufficient.
Supplying weapons does not make someone complicit in the acts carried out with the weapons. Complicit means they participated. Further knowingly supplying weapons used in a war crime is not a war crime, it violates other laws but does not meet war crime criteria.
Well again there is a claim being made without evidence or explanation so what am I supposed to do here? Are you saying my personal experiences are not sufficient to form my opinions? Can you suggest a more reliable method of forming opinions?
I'll tell you what's not an opinion: killing civilians is a war crime. Aiding and abetting war crimes is also illegal. Plenty of assholes were found guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Theres people still doing jail time for providing weapons, logistics support and intelligence to those commiting atrocities. Check it out: there is a neat website for the successor to the criminal tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia https://www.irmct.org/en/about
I understand you want to focus on precise language as a way of dodging any discussion of Americans being involved in any such nasty business. I don't think many people reading this will be so easily fooled. A fact is a fact, jack. Providing bombs you know will be dropped on children is not a morally ambiguous act.
Generalizations about a group require more than the 10ish people you've interacted with.
*Intentionally killing
There are specific criteria that have to be met. Being complicit in an act requires knowledge of the act and participation in the act. Filling up the gas tank of a car used as a get away vehicle doesn't make you a bank robber. Supplying a group arms that are later used to commit war crimes is not by itself a violation of arms treaties or internantional law. Once you prove a war crime has been committed you then need to prove that the supplier knew the weapons would be used to commit war crimes.
Do you have evidence that the Israeli government has a policy to target civilians? Killing civilians is bad but for war crimes you need to prove intent. Before you get assed up I'm not disputing individual Israeli soldiers committed war crimes but whether those acts were Israeli policy.
Next do you have evidence that the US knew that the Israeli government was targeting citizens when it supplied Israel with weapons?